Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FloNight (talk | contribs) at 13:46, 11 December 2007 (→‎Tokelau: ; remove request as rejected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Nigel McGuinness

Initiated by Reswobslc (talk) at 00:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • RFC dated November 8
  • Discussed on BLP Noticeboard: [Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive1#Nigel_McGuinness]

Statement by Reswobslc

This is a dispute related to WP:CENSOR and WP:BLP that has been going on for over a year (since September 2006). The subject of the dispute is whether Nigel McGuinness's real name should be included in the article about him. Nigel McGuinness is the stage name for a wrestler, an individual, publically registered with the United States Patent & Trademark office. Auxiliary to the dispute is administrator conduct, the same administrator in the dispute "settling" it with blocks and protections, disregarding established consensus, which has done nothing but frustrate discussion and prolong the dispute.

In September 2006, TrishBunkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the webmistress of NigelMcGuiness.com, got upset that Wikipedia was publishing this guy's real name, making this appeal ("just leave it out because I'm asking you to"). On the other hand, Wikipedia is not censored, and many of us feel an entertainer's real name is undisputably encyclopedic and non-contentious public information.

This would normally be a matter that could be settled by coming to a consensus, however administrator User:FCYTravis is choosing to go the WP:BOLD route, blocking people who re-add this man's name, protecting the page, and professing that the issue is not up for discussion. Travis has gone as far as to edit user comments (such as my own) on talk pages to scrub this man's name from Wikipedia. I applaud Travis's drive to go above and beyond the call of duty and for the hard effort he has clearly put into accommodating User:TrishBunkey's request and doing what he feels best benefits the project, but at some point we must realize that Wikipedia isn't built on dictatorship. I feel it is overstepping his bounds for Travis to extend a favor to User:TrishBunkey that involves censoring Wikipedia (and blocking people to enforce his favor, such as this week-long one, apparently unprovoked as far as I can tell from blockee's contribs). It is impossible to come to a consensus when involved parties are (ab)using administrative tools like this to enforce their way, lest it escalate into a wheel war.

The main points that deserve fair consideration appear to me to be the following:

  1. Is his real name public, or is it not? Nigel McGuinness's real name is a matter of public record - it became that way when he filed for a trademarked stage name. But Nigel, or at least his webmaster, would prefer that his real name be private. That certainly deserves consideration. Of course, it's been argued that Richard Nixon would prefer that Watergate be kept private as well, were he alive. Where do we draw the line?
  2. Is the US PTO a reliable source? User:FCYTravis has frequently asserted that just because the man (whose initials are S. H.) is the registrant for the trademark, doesn't necessarily mean it's him. (There is no actual bona fide belief that it's not him - IT IS - the accuracy of the information is not in dispute.) If it were a contentious allegation, the burden of proof is much higher - but this isn't the case here. This is strictly factual biographical information. The only point of contention is that his website's webmaster doesn't like seeing it here, and asked for its removal as a courtesy, not because it was inaccurate.
  3. Is withholding someone's real name WP:CENSORship? Certainly Wikipedia must draw the line somewhere. Often times phone numbers and addresses are public information as well, but we have the senses to withhold it due to the disruption that can be caused by publishing it. Possibly, that's because that information is only of stalker value, not encyclopedic value. But real names and birthdates, many of us believe, are very different.
  4. Is there consensus for removal/inclusion of the name? And, either way, is there an overriding policy or Foundation matter that overrides consensus? It is my observation that consensus is clearly in favor of including the name - and whether there's an overriding principle, that's why I'm asking ArbCom.
  5. Is WP:OTRS a relevant factor here? After making the public complaint, the complainant, User:TrishBunkey, was led to take it to OTRS (see VRTS ticket # 2006092210008209.), and Travis now cites OTRS as a reason for acting unilaterally. Without diminishing the importance of OTRS, it doesn't seem like a way to add validity to a complaint that has already been made in public. Essentially, User:FCYTravis is enforcing a self-made rule, which amounts to "don't re-add this name to this article, and don't ask why either - it's confidential per WP:OTRS". I believe the community is entitled to better information, especially when at least half a dozen people have independently come to add the name, only to find there's an unwritten and unspoken rule that boils down to "because User:FCYTravis said so".
  6. Would withholding the name be a good idea anyway? Obviously there's no need for Wikipedia to unnecessarily step on people's toes, but the line has already been drawn to address that, at WP:CENSOR. I included administrator User:Alphachimp in this RfArb because once upon a time, he suggested we just honor the request because he says it's a liability issue. That was an excellent way to keep the tempers under control, but over a year later we still have this unsolved issue. I feel liability is remotely possible - but also entirely unlikely, but I'm not a lawyer, and likely neither is any of us. Absent Wikimedia Foundation legal advice, and per WP:PEREN#Legal issues the community should not be censoring Wikipedia or imposing restrictions upon itself with its incomplete comprehension of legality absent directives from WMF's legal counsel.
  7. Is Travis's going so far as to edit the name out of other user's talk comments appropriate? Granted, this isn't going to hurt anybody, and I don't fault Travis's good faith for doing so. Doing that takes serious elbow grease for no reward, and yet he's doing it. But will this help or harm the project? Will it contribute to an expectation that somebody will scrub anything anybody demands that they don't like, true or not, verifiable or not?
  8. Are these blocks and page protections appropriate behavior of an administrator? WP:BLP gives enormous latitude to administrators to protect Wikipedia from people who wish to post libellous information about living people. On the other hand, it's another matter to block somebody for 7 days without a warning, and to edit-war and protect his version after being directly asked to involve a 3rd party in his dispute rather than heavy-handing his side with admin tools.
  9. Does WP:BLP#Privacy of names apply here? To me, BLP#Privacy of names appears to apply to private individuals or people who appeared in the news for a single event, not a public entertainer or figure.

Places this issue has been debated in the past:

Thanks for your attention.

Statement by FCYTravis

It has been repeatedly asked of those who wish this person's real name to be included, which reliable source this information can be sourced to.

No satisfactory answer has yet been given. There are, apparently, no reliable sources to be had, and thus for want of such sourcing, we omit it.

The PTO filing Reswobslc refers to is a red herring, as nowhere does it explicitly state that the person who has filed the trademark is necessarily the subject of the trademark. It is, then, conjecture and interpretation that a correlation exists. Conjecture and interpretation is not fact. We cannot include information about a living person which is based only upon original research.

I have repeatedly stated that should evidence exist that his real name is widely disseminated and republished in reliable sources, that there would be good reason to reconsider the decision. No such evidence has been forthcoming. Therefore there exists no encyclopedic reason to disseminate and republish his name where other reliable sources have not.

The privacy of names policy has been applied in the past, and continues to be applied, to other performers who use stage names, notably adult film actors/actresses. The criteria has been whether the person is publicly known by their real name, and whether that real name has been previously used and published in reliable sources, such as biographies, interviews or news articles. Again, there has been no evidence proffered by anyone that such is the case in this matter.

The assertion made by Reswobslc that I "had the complainant, User:TrishBunkey, take her complaint to OTRS" is false. It is my recollection that I first became aware of the situation through the OTRS ticket. This is supported by the (now-deleted) talk page post which marks my first involvement in the issue, and cites the OTRS ticket as my reasoning for taking action. (paragraph struck after retraction)

I further wish to refute Reswobslc's unfounded and perhaps unintentional supposition that there is personal involvement in this matter, by his characterization of my actions as "doing someone a favor." In the process of responding to complaints made through OTRS, I undertake many necessary actions to address valid concerns - from simple reversion of vandalism to content deletion. Or, if a complaint is not well grounded, a polite reply declining their request may be the only result. None of this is "doing a favor" to anyone. Rather, I am carrying out the task appointed to me; to wit, addressing private and sensitive content issues brought to our attention via OTRS.

The block in question was made on a user whose reinsertion of the name was clearly in bad faith. His use of a misleading edit summary, "Small corrections in intro" to hide his actions shows clear intent to disrupt.

If it is determined that I have overstepped my bounds, I apologize and shall withdraw from the matter. But I do not believe that I have - instead, I believe that I have in good faith pursued the enforcement of our content policies with regards to reliable sourcing, privacy of names and original research. FCYTravis (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lid

Although this lists me in the parties as an administrator I will note that for most of this dispute I was not an administrator having only recently become one.

The crux of this situation is that Nigel McGuinness' real name has been verifiably sourced however the information is blocked from inclusion on wikipedia based off an OTRS request. I have always found this decision to be odd and have, several times, attempted to bring it up again at the BLP noticeboard and in e-mails to wikimedia staff. I was consistently told that while, yes, the sourcing was perfect and not in doubt in either reliability or validity, it should still be omitted.

This answer is the only exception on wikipedia to such as case, and there have been many other cases of this sort the most recently being Atze Schröder who despite having sued wikimedia for having his real name revealed it is still kept on wikipedia because it is reliable, sourced and correct information. The same standard has applied to other people with personas who do not like their real name known such as Buckethead, Criss Angel and to a certain degree Alvin Burke, Jr.

I am not sure if this falls under RfA's purview but several attempts have been made to rectify this seeming "mistake" of judgment on the article that has left it omitting accurate information have been met with that the decision was final, even though from my eyes and several others the decision reached was wrong.

In regards to the idea that the USPTO filing is "original research", that completely misinterprets what original research is and especially what it means on wikipedia. Given the USPTO's own website and glossary the filing was filed by the person who uses the name, not by a proxy. This is not original research by any stretch, it is using a glossary to understand the USPTO that the website itself provides. from an e-mail reply from Jeandré du Toit of wikimedia on this matter "I agree with you that finding the USPTO page is not original research as rejected for WP, it's just research for information."


Statement by uninvolved Durova

Lid asked me to comment here. I'm curious what WMF's decision was about the OTRS request and why there wasn't better communication all around. If FCYtravis's actions were consistent with WMF's determination, then I would hope in the future that OTRS volunteers would receive more official support long before a situation degenerates to this point. That ought to be a scenario that could be settled without arbitration. If his actions did exceed the scope of OTRS, and if he should reasonably have understood that he was crossing the bounds of normal OTRS volunteer work, then this would seem to be a worthy matter for arbitration. DurovaCharge! 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mercury

WP:OTRS may be of some application as well.

Statement by possibly uninvolved Y|yukichigai

While I have no experience with the article in question, I have been recently butting heads with FCYTravis on a separate article. Since this request includes an editor conduct component, I felt I should comment on my impressions of FCYTravis' general behavior.

My primary interaction with FCYTravis is relating to the Star Wars kid article in a similar situation. To briefly summarize the details, a few months ago another editor removed all mention of the kid's real name citing WP:BLP concerns. Travis agreed with the assessment, and has since done everything in his power to keep the name out of the article, up to and including protecting the article to stop the name from being inserted. His behavior in talk page discussions has also been questionable, from removing an editor's argument because he thinks it compares the kid to Hitler, to assuming bad faith when an editor asks about verification of a rumor, to threatening to ignore 3RR, protect the page, and ban editors to keep the name out.

Now obviously I'm a little biased on this, given that Travis and I are on opposite sides of a rather heated debate. Nonetheless I think his behavior might be worth examining more closely, particularly since the three other administrators on the "opposing side" have been able to present their arguments and maintain the article in their desired format without resorting to threats or talk page disruption.

Finally, if this does become an RfArb examining FCYTravis' conduct I wish to be considered an involved party. Outside of that I have no involvement in the dispute. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy

I urge the arbitrators to accept this case for the following reason:

As FCYTravis says, no reliable source has been provided for the name, other than conjecture based on the USPTO filing. We also have OTRS complaints in respect of this. Editors who refuse to follow WP:NOR and respect WP:BLP should not be treated as if they are simply combatants in a content dispute. Two fundamental policies are being violated by these people, and they are representing the enforcement of those policies as abuse of adminitrative powers. I do not believe this is acceptable conduct.

Statement by Nick

I, like Guy, urge the arbitrators to accept this case. There is clear and unacceptable violations of WP:BLP here. Professional entertainers choose their stage names and at the same time, they choose to keep their real name secret, this can be for a number of reasons, but can ultimately be for reasons of security and safety for them, their families and friends. This isn't a case about content, it's about doing no harm.

Statement by Stifle

I would urge acceptance as well but for the opposite reason. There is one gaping hole in FCYTravis's argument - BLP and verifiability supports removing the name from main namespace without citation but presents no case whatsoever for removing it from talk and other namespaces or for selectively deleting revisions to do the same. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Out of position reply) Um, first sentence of WP:BLP; "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page." (Emphasis in original). For example, more than one AfD page has been blanked after closure due to comments like, "Keep--Thatcher131 is a dirty crook, but he's a notable dirty crook," and complaining on an article talk page "Why won't you publish the truth that Dr. Stifle's malpractice has killed 3 people" is just as big a problem as writing "Dr. Stifle's malpractice has killed three people" in the article itself. Thatcher131 16:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth sentence of BLP: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. The policy is not limited to articlespace, but applies to the entire project. FCYTravis (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. Teaches me to re-read policies before requoting them. However, I think that it's highly debatable that the material is contentious. Stifle (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AnonEMouse

Reject, content dispute, whether or not to include content. Also a fairly straight forward dispute, covered by WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy: "Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details ... unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." That's pretty clearly this issue, and the subject clearly cares, so we leave the name out until a reliable secondary source (newspaper, magazine, book, ...) prints it. (For what it's worth, I edit in an area in which this comes up even more often than professional wrestling. Let the consolation be that it's only two words, surely not crippling to the article.) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

Moulton

Initiated by Moulton (talk) at 05:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proxied for Moulton, who is currently blocked. Anthøny 16:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

The Arbitration Clerk, Anthøny, was kind enough to post the required notices on the talk page of each of the three named respondents. Two of them have already responded here, and are thus demonstrably aware of the request. KillerChihuahua, who has not yet responded, has not been seen on WP since Dec 1st, and so she may not yet be aware of the notice placed on her talk page by Anthøny on 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC). Policy permitting, I would ask the members of the Arbitration Committee to afford her time to respond before deciding whether to review the issues of due process that I am placing before the ArbCom.[reply]

Moulton (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

In the wake of indefinite blocking by KillerChihuahua and the blanking and page-protection of my talk page by MastCell, the only remaining channel of communication was E-Mail. I sent E-Mail to several admins (including Yamla and KillerChihuahua). KillerChihuaHua did not respond. Yamla advised me to send E-Mail to unblock-en-l. Sarah Ewart responded and advised me to send my request to ArbCom. Charles R. Matthews confirmed that my request did go to the ArbCom mailing list, but I did not hear back from anyone. I also sent E-Mail to Mike Godwin, but he did not respond beyond saying that I should take the case to ArbCom rather than to him or Cary Bass. Durova briefly explored the possibility of an unblock but decided not to proceed. Finally, Mercury determined that I had a right to appeal to ArbCom and proposed using the Request for Arbitration template.

Statement by Moulton

I am asking ArbCom to review whether responsible admins participating in my RfC and its aftermath afforded me diligent and conscientious due process, without regard to the whether the final outcome would have been justified by a fair exercise of due process.

The Role of KillerChihuahua

On September 11th, KillerChihuahua blocked me, giving as her reason:

Disruptive POV OR warrior with no interest in writing an encyclopedia. See Rfc.

I take exception to KillerChihuahua's action on four grounds:

1. Conflict of Interest
The referenced RfC was initiated by members of the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design, of which KillerChihuahua is a charter member. The members of the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design acted in concert as plaintiff, witness, judge, jury, and executioner. I am asking ArbCom to review the propriety of allied editors and admins arrogating to themselves the roles of judge, jury, and executioner when they initiated the RfC as plaintiffs and witnesses. To my mind, playing these multiple roles constitutes a prima facie conflict of interest and a subversion of due process.

2. Erratic Theory of Mind
KillerChihuahua based her decision in part on a haphazard Theory of Mind which she asserted both in the RfC discussion and in her stated reason in the block log. She stated her theory of mind that "I had no interest in writing an encyclopedia" at 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC) and executed the block eight minutes later at 19:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC), without affording me an opportunity to refute her presumptive theory of mind. The next day, I sent this message to KillerChihuahua, refuting her absurd theory of mind regarding my level of interest in writing encyclopedia articles:

In justifying your block, you gave this official reason:



"Disruptive POV OR warrior with no interest in writing an encyclopedia."

Please see Encyclopedia of International Media and Communications, where you will find that I co-authored (with Nancy Williams) an 8-page peer-reviewed encyclopedia article entitled "Electronic (Virtual) Communities" (2004). This refutes your "theory of mind" that I have "no interest in writing an encyclopedia."

I am asking ArbCom to review the propriety of an admin executing a block based on a haphazard or presumptive theory of mind regarding an editor's interests or intentions, wherein the admin inexplicably failed to request or attend to evidence refuting the theory of mind upon which the contested decision rests.

3. Action Taken Exceeded Remedy Sought in RfC
The RfC sought limited remedies that did not including blocking at all (let alone indefinite blocking). KillerChihuahua's action of an indefinite block far exceeded the limited and specific remedies sought by her allied editors on the RfC.

I am asking ArbCom to review whether KillerChihuahua applied an excessive and unjust remedy in view of the issues raised in the RfC.

4. Failure to Respond
KillerChihuahua failed to acknowledge or respond to my message of September 12th refuting her prejudicial claim that I had "no interest in writing an encyclopedia."

I am asking ArbCom to review the propriety of a blocking admin to ignore information and evidence that clearly demonstrates an error in judgment by the admin who rendered the judgment to execute the block.

The Role of Yamla

Shortly after KillerChihuahua executed the block, I contested the block as unjust and added this comment:

Request reason: "It is unbecoming for Wikipedia to eschew the goal of achieving reasonable standards of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media."

Yamla declined to overturn the block, endorsing KillerChihuahua's reason thusly:

Decline reason: "You have shown no intention of abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Yamla 20:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)"

I take exception to Yamla's response on these grounds:

1. No Evidence for Theory of Mind
Yamla repeats the Theory of Mind error by presumptively asserting my (negative) intentions without seeking reliable evidence to support his belief regarding my apprehension of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Had he inquired, I would have explained to him the difficulty in reckoning policies and guidelines which are confusing at best and contradictory at worst. For example, on the 3RR guideline, there is a specific exemption for BLP's with false and defamatory content. Yet at least one of the adversarial editors in the RfC asserted that no such exemption applies. How is my express intention to apply the WP:BLP "Do No Harm" clause interpreted as "no intention of abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines"?

I am asking ArbCom to review the propriety of an admin acting presumptively on a theory of mind without seeking evidence from me to ensure that his belief about my intentions is a valid theory of mind.

2. Unresponsiveness
Yamla's response ignored my perplexity over the apparent dismissal of my stated objective of "achieving reasonable standards of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media." Nor did he call KillerChihuahua back to provide that response so as to achieve closure on the unanswered issues in the wake of her hasty judgment and execution.

I am asking ArbCom to review Yamla's response in light of these unanswered questions.

The Role of MastCell

MastCell's role is somewhat different. He endorsed KillerChihuahua's initial judgment call without suggesting that she validate her haphazard theory of mind first. He posted the blocking template on my talk page and eventually blanked it and protected it to prevent me from answering my relentless critics or further questioning the failure of the other participants to respect the nominal requirements of due process and appeal. MastCell also suggested that Wikipedia should declare itself exempt from the normative standards for ethics in journalism.

I am asking ArbCom to consider whether MastCell exercised sufficient due diligence in ensuring that I was afforded a fair hearing by an impartial jury rather than being subjected to a hasty and undignified action that demonstrably subverted reasonable principles of due process. I am also asking ArbCom to render an opinion whether Wikipedia does or does not adhere to normative standards for ethics in journalism.

Moulton 05:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental Evidence

There is further evidence that the treatment I was afforded in the course of the RfC and its aftermath corresponds to a common formulaic script that has since been independently reported to the highest levels of leadership at Wikimedia:

New people arrive, having bought into the PR, edit for a while, and then either align with the ruling Cabal or get disgusted and leave. Anyone who dissents is accused of trolling, disruption, or not being here to write an encyclopedia. People get banned all the time, their talk pages are locked, with no discussion permitted within the community, and appeals only to Arbcom.

I am asking ArbCom to investigate and determine whether the allied editors and admins participating in my RfC and its aftermath engaged in a familiar Kafkaesque formulaic script routinely applied to a substantial number of cases similar to this one, without regard for conscientious and due diligence in the exercise of due process.

Moulton (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap With Other Cases

The generic issues of adherence to reasonable standards of due process arise in other cases before ArbCom. Notable among these is a current case that was opened a day before this request was filed.

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, Charles Matthews notes "there are wider issues, such as the biting of newcomers of unpopular views." He concludes, "I believe it is important to know to what extent such decisions have become endemic, as a workaround of the gathering of hard evidence..."

I am asking ArbCom to look beyond the details of any single case for a recurring pattern of unfair and draconian treatment that bespeaks an unbecoming trend in the disregard of reasonable standards for the exercise of due process.

Moulton (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KillerChihuahua

Statement by Swatjester regarding KillerChihuahua

Though early appearances are that this case will be declined, I do not understand why KillerChihuahua is realistically a party here. Killer Chihuahua, other than a single edit on Dec. 1, has not edited since Oct. 20. According to her User Talk page, she has been in poor health. She has not responded to talk page comments in some time. This case should be dismissed immediately for mootness. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender

Statement by Yamla

Moulton's unblock request was, "It is unbecoming for Wikipedia to eschew the goal of achieving reasonable standards of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media." I stand by my statement, Moulton has "... shown no intention of abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines." It is certainly the case that his unblock request gave me no reason to believe so. It is also worth pointing out Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moulton which I believe led to his initial indefinite block. I was not involved in that RfC nor, to the best of my knowledge, anything else to do with Moulton except for reviewing the unblock request. I understand that the Intelligent Design and Evolution articles are often a focus of ahem aggressive dispute but note that these articles are not, as fair as I am aware, on my watch list. --Yamla 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

The impression I formed from my limited interaction with Moulton is summed up in my comment at his RfC. Whatever Moulton's goals may be, they do not include functioning within Wikipedia's policies to build the encyclopedia. His objective, at least as clearly as I could find it stated, was "to document the character of the inherent dysfunctionality by collecting as much data as possible before the cabal finishes its hatchet job (which will be just another data source) and then write it all up -- first as a personal memoir, and then as a technical analysis." Later he indicated that he had come here to "defend science itself, and the integrity of scientific journalism." He was quite insistent on conceptualizing Wikipedia as "online journalism", when in fact it is a tertiary source with a quite different mandate.

My sense is that, along with the "online journalism" concept, he has a fundamental disagreement with the policy of verifiability, not truth. Above, he describes Wikipedia as "declaring itself exempt from the normative standards for ethics in journalism", because of its reliance on verifiable rather than "true" information. While this viewpoint could potentially be pursued on policy pages or in a meta-forum like wikipedia-en-l, it was instead pursued, at great length, on the talk pages of controversial articles, with an exhausting and disruptive effect.

I agreed with KillerChihuahua's block: it seemed apparent, at the time, that Moulton's input was disruptive; that his goals and approach were at odds with Wikipedia's fundamental pillars; and that he was not willing to adjust his approach to facilitate collaborative editing. His unblock request again made reference to the standards of a journalistic publication rather than an encyclopedia. It made no reference to the reason for his block, which was the disruptive effect of his approach, and it was properly declined by Yamla, an uninvolved admin with extensive experience in reviewing unblock requests.

Moulton asserts that I protected his user talk page in order to "prevent me from answering my relentless critics or further questioning the failure of the other participants to respect the nominal requirements of due process and appeal." Presumably, this is why I'm named as a party. In fact, I protected because his unblock request being declined, he had continued to use it to link his blog, and for this sort of thing. I protected it to put an end to both the "relentless attacks" (which were, in fact, occurring) as well as his increasingly off-topic and tangential posts - hence, "Enough silliness". He was well aware of further avenues to appeal his block, and apparently exercised them, contacting the Foundation legal counsel as well as unblock-en-l and ArbCom (by email). I presume none of these approaches bore fruit.

I don't see a compelling reason to unblock Moulton. Far from acknowledging any part his own conduct and approach might have played in the situation, his request here is essentially a petition for ArbCom to smite everyone he perceives to have wronged him. I have not reviewed his off-wiki writings in depth, but my sense is that they likewise express no change of heart nor new willingness to abide by policy. His request also ignores a basic reality: it's not necessary to develop a cohesive "theory of mind" to block someone; instead, it's necessary to establish that they are damaging Wikipedia and that the damage is likely to continue. I think that's been well-established, and the interim data since the block don't indicate that the equation has changed in any way. MastCell Talk 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement From Uninvolved Observer R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

Indefinate blocks are serious sanctions and should not be undertaken lightly. The Committee has stated this numerous times. Here we have a user with GREAT potential to contribute as an editor, who is being effectively banned primarily due to his association with WR and the fact he has a personal blog which is critcal of Wikipedia. He has certainly not done anything On-pedia to justify an indefinate block. I therefore strongly urge the Committee to allow Moulton to have his say and defend himself against these Trumpped-up charges. Please accept this case.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury

I don't see anything unblockworthy or new. Recommend the committee reject this as handled.

Statement by semi-involved editor Baegis

The first encounter I had with Moulton was on his RFC regarding his actions at the Rosalind Picard article. In fact, I registered my account around the same time and my second edit was to his RFC. Needless to say, this led to some accusations of sockpuppetry later, as some were confused by an editor whose first major edit was to an RFC. Regardless of that, I had been watching the ID articles for a good long minute and had seen Moulton's behavior go from making a half-hearted attempt to edit some of the ID articles, notably Picard and A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, to what could only be described as the textbook definition of WP:DE. He absolutely refused to acknowledge that he was incorrect in any of his statements and kept insisting that since he worked with Picard that he was somehow better qualified as a source than any of the other sources used in her article (yes, pretty much the whole archive). He also kept trumping his degree as he thought it gave him the upper hand when it came to disputes, especially the fact that he worked with her in the MIT Media Lab. Throughout the course of his RFC, he displayed little to no desire of acknowledging the community's input regarding his behavior, as he continued to use WP as a soapbox. As mentioned by MastCell, he kept arguing for sweeping changes in WP policy. While the merits of the changes may or may not be valid, the pages on which he was discussing these changes were an inappropriate place for this discussion and he was reminded of this fact. When it became clear that he was not going to change as an editor, he was handed an indefinite block. This block should not be overturned as he has displayed a clear unwillingness to work within the guidelines of WP in order to achieve the goal of building an encyclopedia.

Now I am not denying the fact that Moulton is quite an astute man with a wealth of knowledge to bring to WP. But he has continuously flaunted the community guidelines and therefore is more of a liability to the project than anything else. Couple this with his blog in which during the last 6 posts, he detailed his dispute for whatever reason and his new friendship with Larry Fafarman (see MastCell's comment and this, who has been banned from editing for his abhorrent behavior, it is clear he has no desire to edit constructively. His recent entry into the Wikipedia Review community has allowed him to find sympathetic ears for his complaints about the project. While membership of WR is not forbidden for WP writers, we are well aware that WR now serves as a repository for those who have been blocked from editing here and a place where hatred of WP is fanned with the purported slights done to editors on WP. Notable in this is his continued insistence OddNature being a sock of FeloniousMonk [5]. Finally, it is important to examine his actual proposal here, which MastCell mentioned already, in that he does not even begin to acknowledge his own behavior as being a major cause in his block. He also continued his subtle style of questioning other editors mental abilities or capacities with his attack on KillerChihuahua in questioning her state of mind when the block was made. He has a habit of doing this, as a full review of the RFC will prove.

I am the editor that nominated his talk page for the protection that MastCell initiated. I did this because his talk page only served as a place for Moulton to continue his poor behavior and to continue to be a disruption. Accepting this for arbitration will only serve to give Moulton another platform to soapbox and will surely result in his block being upheld. And, in a bit of new information, the folks at WR are watching this one closely. Again, reiterates my point about WR fanning the flames about perceived slights. Baegis (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)


Korean cuisine

Initiated by Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) at 07:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • All parties have been notified
Appletrees notification
Good friends100 notification
Badagnai notification
Melonbarmonster notification
Sennen goroshi notification
Bsharvy notification
Jjk82 notification
Patriotmissle notification
Keyngez notification
CJ DUB notification
Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia notification
Jerem43 notification
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by User:Tanner-Christopher

  • The original issue that started this ball rolling was edit warring on the dog meat section of the Korean cuisine article. This incident stemmed from consistent incivility on this article by certain editors that has exposed another long term issue.
  • The long term issue that has been exposing it self during the second step of the resolution process has been at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit war. It is clear that there are a number of what users have been calling "nationalists" of different Asian "viewpoints" that have been promoting an agenda on a multitude of Korean article which Korean cuisine is only a small part of. South Korea has also been blocked from editing for this reason.
  • Besides the edit warring, there are a number of parties involved that have been very hostile toward anyone working on the articles other than themselves and in addition, this stems from a larger issue with this users not being civil in many of there actions on Wikipedia unless another user agrees with them. So they are in clear violation of not only WP:Own, but also WP:Civility
  • As a response to the reasoning behind a need for more than discourse in the Korean or food communities is that certain users will not compromise at all and continue to use bullying techniques to get their way along with a manipulation of language to make other users trying to help, look like they are not. It seems that at a time like this when the arbitration has been requested, however, that they seem to be warming up to the idea but I do not know if this is dis-ingenious or heart-felt in intent. As this seems to be a pattern with a number of the editors, specifically those with block records, (which can not be a coincidence) this pattern will continue again with repeated disruption of these articles unless these users are addressed en mass by proper administrators as others of us have been unable to be effective.

Statement by Daniel

This case was listed for formal mediation with the Mediation Committee recently, however all the issues listed were primarily conduct-based. As I explained to the parties on the case page, formal mediation will only address disputes which have resolvable content issues (and we will only look at content, readily ignoring any conduct aspect unless it prevents mediation from working, in which case the request is closed). This is due to Committee convention which in turn is based from limits on the mediation model (see commentary).

Our goal is to resolve the content dispute which, in turn, will resolve the conduct issues having assisted the parties to a negotiated compromise. However, this requires for the content issues to be the primary issues and the conduct issues to be both secondary, manageable and not fatal to mediation attempts. In this case, it was clear that the conduct issues have slowly made their way from the primary to the secondary issue, and it was more-than-likely that the conduct issues would have made mediation unworkable.

I ask the Committee that if this case is rejected for whatever reason, that reason not be that "this request should go through mediation", unless the Arbitration Committee wishes for the Mediation Cabal to be involved prior to an arbitration case. Although I have absolutely no interest in the case whatsoever beyond wishing all parties well in resolving it, I felt it must be noted that the dispute as it currently stands (and is documented) was not applicable for formal mediation and this is why it was rejected/withdrawn.

Cheers, Daniel 07:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Sennen_goroshi

While there has been some considerable amount of friction in the article(s), I think the holier than thou attitude of some newcomers to the article is not productive. The editor(s) who are calling for permanent bans are just as guilty of provocative editing, as the long standing contributers. Of course no one owns the article, and anyone is able to edit it, but I can understand the annoyance of some editors who have been working on this article for a long time, to suddenly have new editors step in and demand that the editing is done according to their standards.

Perhaps a little reasoning by all editors, and people trying to get opinions, rather than a mere show of hands before major changes are made would be useful. Consensus should not be assumed just because 4 editors say yes, and 3 say no.

Compromise has to be accepted by all parties, when compromise is hard to reach, editors should look at the examples set by other difficult articles, and general rules that have been set down.

I do understand the opinions of Jerem and CCC, this is just a food article, it should not be so hard to edit, it isn't an article on Jesus or abortion, it is a damn shame that it has become a pro/anti Japan/Korea article.

As far as I am concerned the only understandably controversial aspect of the article is the dog meat section.

To have people complaining about whether item A is Korean food, Japanese food, Korean food influenced by Japan or Korean food that was stolen by Japan, due to Japan's occupation of Korean is pathetic.

In short, with a little respect for the time and effort put into these articles by all editors involved, Jerem and CCC showing how easy food articles can be edited, rather than screaming "lets block everyone", and the more antagonistic editors saving the controversy for an article than actually deserves it, there might be a lot of problems solved rather easily, without the need for another 10 billion ANI reports.Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User Spartaz

Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously indefinitly blocked following his 6th or 8th violation (I forget) of the 3RR but this was lifted to allow him to participate in the Liancort Rocks arbitration case after he agreed a strict 1RR condition. Subsequently he was blocked twice for violating this condition and a community ban was considered at ANI but failed to find a clear consensus to ban him. Since then, his editing restrictions - partricularly the 1RR have been restated more clearly and are recorded on his talk page. I am regularly monitoring his contributions. I have not seen any recent edits that have given me any cause for concern. Good friend100 is now very clear that he is on his very final last chance and is making a real effort to behave himself. Including him in this request appears to be judging him on his past behaviour which has already been fully considered. This is unfair. I would ask the committee, if accepted, to only include him as a party of this case if specific diffs of recent poor behaviour are submitted. Spartaz Humbug! 13:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User bsharvy

This request is unwarranted. It seems to be a substitute for making a sincere effort to discuss facts and reasons. The discourse concerning actual content (as opposed to personalities) has gone like this: 1) some people (including the requester) propose X, 2) some others (such as me) disagree and say why. Then, discussion stops and the requester declares a need for outside intervention, RFC, complaints to administrators, and now a request for arbitration. An editor should respond with reasons to another editor's different view, not just promptly go and request more opinions or some authority. I have no idea why editors disgree with the arguments I've presented. Nobody has responded in any signicant way to any point or principle I've asserted. On what grounds is there a claim of an impasse in the discussion of content? There has barely been an effort to discuss content (there has been plenty of effort to discuss personalities). It has been less than a week since the page was locked, but already the requester is describing it as a step that has been tried, and presumably failed (hence this next step). You have to talk to others; it is work. Requesting outside authorities the minute you hit disagreement (about content) is not consensus-building. Bsharvy 09:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"For requests involving groups of editors on a particular article or topic area, it is expected that mediation will be attempted." Was this done? If so, nobody told me. Odd, considering I seem to be the main dissenter in the discussion about content. Bsharvy 11:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeremy (Jerem43)

I am the person who asked for the block to be placed on the article in the first place and need to comment on this situation.

I came to the article as part of the RfC placed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink and found several issues that the editors were having that was not allowing a true consensus to be formed which had degraded into a three month long edit war. Because of this I placed an ANI request to have the article locked down. These issues that drove me to this include:

  • WP:MoS - I noticed a small error in the formatting of the info box and fixed it as per WP:IBX, a change that was promptly reverted. I thought someone had misinterpreted my edit, I restored it and left a simple message on the talk page about following the MoS in regards to the placement of info boxes. The editors reverted it again, claimed that their consensus was not to follow the MoS thus they were not required to and told me I had no right to make the changes and was not allowed to change the article. This is a serious issue of WP:Own by this group. This issue of ownership is best exemplified by a comment made by the user Appletrees in the ANI discussion:

In my memory, "We" haven't requested your specialty in cuisine here though. So thank your for your "interest" so far.--Appletrees (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • WP:Civility - The interaction between this small group of editors and the rest of the Wiki-community has been brisk at best, openly hostile at its worst. Suggestions made from disinterested parties to help improve the quality of the article or breakup a logjam are often dismissed and the editor is told to go away. This goes against WP:Consensus because the groups places their view above the rest of the community's. Again Appletrees has made a comment that best exemplifies the behavior to others on display in the Talk:Korean cuisine article:

I only see your hostility, incivility and inappropriate usages of language. And don't dare to compare such the junk food with national cuisines. I get to know your specialty lies on that kind of foods, but your rationale sounds more implausible. Your opinion itself prove your violation on WP:OWN. I think somebody heard my opinion above so I think I need to talk about the matter on positioning and redesigning the useless template with many other people into national cuisine. Please don't mess up this talk page any further because you already brought up just chaos and troubles. That is called "disruptive behaviors". --Appletrees 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • WP:3R - The issue with the info box edit was just the last problem, the only reason it wasn't reverted for a third time was the article was locked before there was a third revert by the local group.
  • WP:Good faith - The local group's not trusting the intentions of others who only want to contribute has show a lack of good faith in the whole community.

I understand there may be some language issues and the usage of non-contextual translation services which lead some contributors to misinterpret my posts, which only compounded the problem. However the group is still refusing to come to a consensus over the inclusion of Dog meat in the article and this has put the whole process on hold. Editors are still hung up over the use of statistical information that is being used push each side's POV on the issue. The general consensus made with many of the regular contributors and most of the outside observers, Chris, Thespian, myself and others, is that there should be a brief mentioning of the dishes made from dog meat, that there should be no per capita consumption information without corresponding figures that put the data into context and that the rest should be covered in the Korea section of the Dog meat article. Unfortunately a few contributors wish to include a whole section on the topic. This is the main point (currently) and that is what needs help to arbitrate.

Other issues of civility, ownership and 3r over content also need to be worked on obviously.

Jeremy (Jerem43 20:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Melonbarmonster (Melonbarmonster)

To break down my understanding of what's really going on, the tension is coming from mostly Korean editors, including myself, opposing mostly non-Korean editors from adding and expanding the "dog meat" section of the article. Japanese editors have joined in the fray and have been making edits to to expand anti-Korean aspects of the article: expanding dog meat article, claims of kimchi being carcinogenic, etc..

In spite of the mess of different POV's however, there are substantive content issues involved here and they need to be understood by editors involved and hashed out. In my opinion, the editor who's filing this request(rather new to this article) and other editors involved have to recognize and engage themselves in the specifics of these content issues and focus on trying to resolve them in as much an NPOV manner as possible. If poor edit behavior and edit warring continues, those specific issues should be brought back for arbitration request. As this request stands now, it's too ambiguous.melonbarmonster 08:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)


Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/1)

  • There are conduct issues as noted by Daniel but as presented I'm not sure that they are the type of problem that needs the attention of the Committee. Please elaborate on why more community involvement will not help. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reject, get more community involvement and I think the content dispute can be resolved. If there are persistent editor conduct issues that are interfering with resolving the content dispute then do an editor conduct RFC. FloNight (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I echo Flo's concerns. I don't quite see enough here for the very heavy juggernaut of Arbitration to be useful. James F. (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Like Flo and James I find this, as written, to be a content dispute; also, I do not believe that cases with large numbers of disputants lead to good decisions. I suggest the most serious of the conduct problems be addressed in an RFC, then brought here if necessary. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Place new requests at the top.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Ferrylodge restricted

A user has suggested that editing on presidential candidate Mitt Romney would violate this edit restriction because Romney's an anti-abortion flip-flopper. User specifically opposes Ferrylodge's participation in a debate about including reference to Romney's polygamist ancestors (because, it's argued, polygamy relates to reproduction).[6] Is Ferrylodge in fact restricted from these topics? Is he close to the line? Cool Hand Luke 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not banned from articles about abortion. The ArbCom decision stated: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." First of all, no admin has remotely suggested that I have edited the Mitt Romney article inappropriately. That article has never been reverted by me once, and no admin (involved or uninvolved) has suggested otherwise, much less banned me from the article. Also, of course, the Mitt Romney article is not related to pregnancy or abortion. One could argue that every article is in some sense a result of pregnancy, but such arguments would be absurd. If I were editing an article on polygamy, could an uninvolved admin ban me from that article for editing inappropriately? I think not, but let's plunge off that bridge when we come to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The restriction is meant to be imposed on a case-by-case basis by an admin. Ferrylodge is not under any general ban. Kirill 02:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my two cents on FL's progress since the ArbCom ruling. During the ArbCom case, it was discussed and proposed that FL, in addition to being banned from abortion/pregnancy articles, also be banned from political articles. The committee in the long run did not add this to their remedies, and based on FL's edits since coming back to WP, I'm not sure that was the right decision. On December 1st, after a bit of incivility ("but Turtlescrubber thinks that false info in Wikipedia artoices is fine?" [7]), FL (and another editor) were warned by The Evil Spartan, being told to "cease-fire"[8]. Because of the content dispute, the article has since been protected, however FL has harassed contacted the admin who protected the article multiple times here, even after a RfC and two separate edit requests failed to accomplish FL's edits. While not clear cut abuse, I believe this added together is disruptive. And to give FL credit, there are other editors on the other side fighting for their POVs (you can't have a content dispute with just one side. there are always two sides). But I am extremely disappointed that after the close of the ArbCom case, FL has not taken the opportunity to prove to the community that he can be productive and increase the encyclopedic value of non-controversial articles, but instead has picked up arguing over petty matters at days length on highly contentious articles. I would suggest to FL to please stop editing presidential candidates articles for the time being, and do some neutral contribution to gain the trust of the community. Getting into such a large (yet in the long run insignificant) content dispute so soon after the ArbCom case just doesn't look good.-Andrew c [talk] 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew c, you are hardly a disinterested party here. For example, you accused me during the ArbCom proceedings of "aching for a fight," among many other things.[9] I politely decline your suggestion that I stop editing certain types of articles. Any objective person would see clearly that my edits to presidential candidate articles are very helpful, such as these edits today to the John McCain article. And there was no ArbCom vote about restricting me from political articles, contrary to what Andrew c suggests. Regarding the Mitt Romney article, there is certainly a dispute there, and I have supported at least one admin in that dispute. That article was certainly not protected due to any revert by me. I have never reverted the Mitt Romney article, not once. I thought that the ArbCom proceedings were over. Alas.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Re-opening the arbcom remedy is another question that I'm not asking. I just want to know whether there's anyway he's barred from editing Mitt Romney. It says that the subject should be interpreted broadly. I would say he's clearly forbidden from editing on a candidate's abortion stance, but editing on the candidate generally seems too weak a tangent to me. I want to know whether ArbCom could have possibly meant to forbid anything like this. Cool Hand Luke 04:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the remedy very carefully. He is not barred even from broad abortion and pregnancy topics, unless an uninvolved admin declares him to be in specific instances, in specific articles. Since no admin, involved or uninvolved, has done so at all, he cannot be argued to be banned from any article or topic at this moment. The mental gymnastics required to interpret the remedy, even in the broadest sense, to apply to presidential candidate articles in general would require facial expressions that I would actually pay to see. - Crockspot (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction

I request clarification of this Remedy. El C applied two blocks [10], [11], and over 24 hours later Thatcher131 places a notice of restriction [12]. Is the action of these two admins against the spirit of this particular remedy in that the notice of restriction should be applied first as a warning to that editor that any further violation may invoke an enforcement block, the intent being that the editor is given fair opportunity and chance to cease that particular behaviour? My concern is that the action of an over zealous admin may have driven a very productive editor away [13]. Martintg (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note: What did you expect when this botched ArbCom ended? I mean, here we are, with El_C, admin and Che Guevara (Communist) wannabe considered "uninvolved" when the whole issue here is not "Eastern Europe", but the heritage of Communism and Soviet Russian occupation. Not to mention that you have the same definition of the "conflict area" in the recent Anonimu ArbCom. Just take a look who is defending the Communist and Soviet POV-pusher User:Anonimu. It's the "uninvolved" Communist User:El_C and the Russian User:Irpen. Miraculous, isn't it. :) Dpotop (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the block was issued because of this one single comment on a user's talk page [14], yet there is seemingly no action when grossly more disruptive behaviour is brought to light here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Dr._Dan_inflaming_Eastern_European_topics Martintg (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Action has finally been taken. Martintg (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of the notice (not "warning") clause was to ensure that parties subject to sanctions would be informed of the existence of the general restriction prior to it being applied to them. Editors obviously aware of the restriction—notably, the parties to the case—are not meant to receive additional notifications. Kirill 13:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill, so you are basically saying that the meaning of this remedy is that all and every single editor of EE topics, is already subject to this general restriction? So why is it worded "may be made subject to an editing restriction" if this is the case. So as editors of EE topics, we either all are subject to this editing restriction, or we all may be subject to the editing restriction given the appropriate notice, which is it? Most confusing. Should not every single editor of EE articles be now notified on their talk page that they are all subject to this general editing restriction? This need to be clarified. Martintg (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The remedy says that if someone is uncivil, makes personal attacks, or assumed bad faith, then an administrator may make them the subject of an editing restriction (ie, a block). How is that confusing? Obviously not everyone is currently affected by such a restriction, as not everyone is blocked. Kirill already answered your question regarding notification: those that are unaware should be notified, those that are already aware need not be. --Deskana (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the clarification. So who should start with this notification process, I suspect that there are a lot of regular EE editors who may not be aware of this General Restriction. I suppose this notification should be similar to this User_talk:Sander_Säde#Notice_of_editing_restrictions, which warns "future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking". Martintg (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Deskana, I am still confused by this template {{subst:Digwuren enforcement}}, which you and Kirill must admit is structured as a warning notice, which must be logged in the appropriate place to take effect, according to the text below:

Notice of editing restrictions

File:Yellow warning.png

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.


I am not wiki-lawyering here, I just think it is necessary to clarify this mechanism for the benefit of not only us editors at the coal face, but also the admins who have to administer this. Let's have some clarity here to ensure the smooth running of Wikipedia, that is all I ask. Martintg (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, Deskana, not wanting to labour the issue, but there is a distinction between an editing restriction and a block, is there not? You both seem to be implying that that they are the same thing, the block is the editing restriction. But this is at odds with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement_by_block: "Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked", an explicit distinction which Kirill himself drafted. I mean, there are all sorts of general editing restrictions in force, 3RR being one for example. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this suppose to operate thus:

  1. Misbehaviour -> Editing restriction placed via notice on user talk page and logged
  2. Further misbehaviour -> block applied and logged.

I know admins are encouraged to ignore the rules, but we do need clarification here before some over zealous admins begin driving good people off the project for the slightest infraction, as in the case of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Estonia coordinator User:Sander Säde. Martintg (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, you're correct. Keep in mind, though, that the main intent of the notification requirement is not to serve as a warning, per se; but, rather, to make sure that editors unaware of the existence of this remedy would not find themselves blocked without finding out about it beforehand. When the editor in question, having been a party to the actual case, is already well aware of the need to conduct themselves civilly, we're not going to crack down on admins for forgetting some of the paperwork. To be quite honest, anyone involved in the case has no excuse for being uncivil at this point; I think that we made it very clear that the poor behavior seen in this area is not acceptable. Kirill 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm not looking to have an admin flogged for forgotten paperwork, just clarification and guidance for the benefit of editors and admins alike, because this does apply to the entire Eastern Europe, broadly defined. It must be noted that User:Sander Säde did subsequently apologise in his block review request.
How ever it appears that in his exuberance User:El_C used this remedy (which is aimed at incivility) for blocking User:Alexia Death for basically revert warring [15]. The revert warring was over this comment [16], and to interpret this as incivility is an asumption of bad faith. In fact this comment is a salute to Ghirla for the tough battles of the past with well wishes for the future. Using this remedy for edit warring is an inappropriate, so therefore I request that User:Alexia Death's logging of her enforcement block and associated notification log be removed from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement_2. Martintg (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was apparently a case of forgotten "paperwork". Kirill has confirmed that for those who were not a party to the original case 1. Misbehaviour -> Editing restriction placed via notice on user talk page and logged, 2. Further misbehaviour -> block applied and logged. For those who were a party: both applied at the same time. Martintg (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there seems to have been a fair amount of confusion regarding what exactly the remedy was. For future use, I've created Wikipedia:General sanctions to keep track of these wide-area remedies. I'd appreciate it if people could leave links to it where appropriate. Kirill 06:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about the notice. I was part of the case and I acknowledge it to be unnecessary. I talking about logging the block itself and requesting comment on delay in logging it as an enforcement block, witch I personally doubt it was.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:General sanctions sounds like a good idea. I have taken the liberty to add the second Armenia-Azerbaijan case (with some rewording, for consistency) to it. I submit it to your and other members of the Committee's approval. El_C 09:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kirill, one more clarification needed on applicability. This remedy is only applicable to EE topics right? I mean if it happens in areas outside EE, for example, an editor gets into a discussion with an admin on another admin's talk page and they start revert warring over the editor's comment "So these are "Durova-style" rules! LOL. I cant take Wikipedia seriously any more. This is ridiculous!", [17], [18], [19], [20], and rightly or wrongly that admin ends up blocking this editor as a result [21] (I've searched and searched but cannot find this alleged inflammatory comment "you guys could do with little sunshine in your lives"), is it appropriate that this block be logged under this particular remedy? Martintg (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom warnings and reminders

Sometimes, ArbCom will close a case with a remedy, where an editor is warned/reminded not to do something but is not punished. What if the editor ignores the warning/reminder? Is there a process to tell ArbCom that the editor ignored the warning/reminder and should be punished? --Kaypoh (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing a new case, typically. Non-binding remedies are just that: non-binding. Kirill 12:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Privatemusings sockpuppet principle

I would like to request clarification on one matter here, namely the restriction that "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." I know I'm not the only administrator to use a secondary account for security purposes while on a public or shared machine. Generally, such secondary accounts are clearly marked as to who they are controlled by, and cannot be used, for example, for circumvention or "bad hand" purposes, as they are clearly linked to their owner. Does the committee intend this ruling to apply even to such accounts? Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This use came up during the Committee's discussion about our understanding of the sockpuppet policy. As long as the accounts are labeled in a way that makes the connection obvious there should not be a problem. Going the extra step of signing these posts with both account names will help if the account names are not obviously the same person. FloNight (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a related thread (from the proposed decision talk page here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, part II

I ask clarification in the application of the enforcement clause (link).

The decision says that "[t]hose edit-warring against an administrator following this ruling so as to restore private content without consent of its creator may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved administrator, up to a week in the event of repeated violations". However, as pointed out in this edit by Thebainer (talk), arbitration decisions generally only apply to the case they're made in (exceptions including a number of decisions in the BDJ case, etc.).

So, I ask, does this enforcement apply to the parties/involved users in this case, or all Wikipedians? Naturally, if it is the latter, it should be expected that the user be given a final warning if it can be reasonably assumed that the user wasn't aware of the decision. Daniel 23:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The enforcement applies only to the particulars of this case. Paul August ☎ 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, I think your statement is ambiguous. Does "particulars" mean "particular facts" or "particular parties"? GRBerry 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The general principle is that the principles, findings, remedies and enforcements of a given case apply only to that case. It is not intended that a case decision make new policy or be precedent setting. Thus the enforcement in this case is to be construed conservatively and narrowly, to apply only to the particular parties of this case, and only to the particular private content of this case. It is not intended to apply to other parties or other private content. Paul August ☎ 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm still unclear. Applies only to the parties in this case, and the private information cited in this case? Mercury 00:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova

(Apologies if poorly worded; I'm tired)

Clarification is requested to ensure the community correctly interprets principle #3 in this case. In past cases well-intentioned but unforeseen interpretations of a case principle have led to diverse interpretations and many problems. This one has the same potential so following discussion with Mackensen, I'm requesting clarification early on before any incorrect or assumptive meanings are accidentally drawn. The relevant sentence requiring clarification is:

"If a user feels that they cannot justify their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee."

There are several points of principle that may arise; I'd like to raise them all just to be safe.

  1. In the past, when arbcom has specified a process or a new principle in its cases, that has always been stated or understood to be a proposal, or ad-hoc process, which the community can review or finalize. Or it runs in parallel with the community's view. In other words, it's akin to "this is the starting point, until things get discussed more". Other than asserting Arbcom's right to be involved, rulings don't usually override future consensus by the community at large on the matter. However, a literal reading of this sentence might be taken to mean, "Arbcom has spoken; this is how confidential information is obligated to be handled. All (and future) community discussion futile. Matter decided."
    Evidence of need: posted today on a proposed policy talk page: "I think the "process" section is ... perhaps not necessary. ArbCom expressed in its ruling that all confidential evidence has to go through them, so it wouldn't seem to admit any other [approaches], not even a subset of ArbCom" [22]
    Clarification #1 - Confirmation that in general, when Arbcom makes decision in the form of a process, it's not intended to have a chilling effect on communal learning, or prevent the community considering, finding, and later rethinking, its own ways, over time. (In fact my understanding is that the community is actively encouraged to do so.)
  2. In the past, behavioral evidence has been used against certain sophisticated sockpuppet users. For example, some 60 socks of repeatedly-banned vandal HeadleyDown (AKA. KrishnaVindaloo, maypole, ...) have now been blocked. In proposed policy discussion, more than one person has commented that evidence against well known sockmasters often cannot be placed in public, since its first use would then be to allows the sockmaster to change their "give-away behaviors" ("not a suicide pact").
    Clarification #2 - does Arbcom confirm it now wants all such matters to be its domain now, and no actions of this kind decided by any other user or users?
    Clarification #3 - If so, is this to be a permanent ruling, or more an interim one until the community finds a better proposal that gets consensus. Ie, if the community develops a suitable consensus on an alternative means of handling "confidential information" would Arbcom need to be asked to sanction the communal proposal, before it could replace this ruling?
    Clarification #4 - is it necessary to ask #3? (Not a trivial question, it goes to the heart of how such rulings by Arbcom may be changed or removed, and Arbcom's view on their standing of process rulings it may make)
  3. Finally, if appropriate to ask, does the committee encourage or support the community in developing a more long term policy on handling of confidential information? (One is being developed, but the perceived announcement by Arbcom that it will exclusively handle such matters from now on, has led to question of its merit by a number of users and a diminishing of effort.)

In general what is being requested to be clarified is two things - 1) when Arbcom makes a ruling that will specify what some communal norm, process or conduct should be, how much can the community then develop it own answers going forward, and, 2) in this specific ruling does Arbcom really intend that all administrators who have sockpuppets they can identify via "give-away" behavior, should cease handling these from now on unless Arbcom (as opposed to other people) have reviewed each incident?

I'm fairly sure what Arbcom's ruling means :) and I'm fairly sure it's intended to mean commonsense applies. I feel though that it would be useful to have this sentence re-explained, to ensure no incorrect meanings are drawn causing conflict.

Apologies for presenting a few extreme interpretations. It is because such meanings might be drawn by well-intentioned users, that I'd like this important set of clarifications made asap :)

FT2 (Talk | email) 21:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me respond to each in kind:
  1. Unless it specifically states otherwise, Arbcom rulings do not preclude the development of new policies. Arbcom rulings reflect policies as the committee understands them at that particular time. Arbcom does not, as a rule, create new policies, although it may reconcile conflicting policies.
  2. No, but the administrator should in those cases be able to state which banned user is being blocked, so that users have a point of reference.
  3. See #1, for the most part. If policy evolves in a different direction then the situation can change.
  4. See #1. Arbcom rulings are not court rulings, nor legislation. Arbcom rulings should not be understood as to prevent the development of new policies.
  • As I've said, this ruling reflects policy as we understood it, and I think there's consensus that only Arbcom ought to handle truly "secret" evidence. On the other hand, if a sock is obvious to one sysop, it'll probably be obvious to another. Common sense applies. Arbcom is not the grand clearing-house of sockpuppet investigations. Mackensen (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The community is entirely free to develop a policy to handle matters involving confidential evidence (within reason); our rulings, in general, speak to what we consider to be the present state of Wikipedia convention and practice, and don't make assumptions about future developments.
As for what the principle itself means, there are really two implicit points:
  1. By long-standing tradition, the Committee has the authority to take actions based on evidence that, for various reasons, cannot be revealed to the community as a whole.
  2. Other individuals or groups do not have such authority (with certain narrow exceptions having to do with WMF-authorized work, and so forth).
Thus, users can't take action based on non-public evidence without consulting us and then refuse to explain their action to the community. The question of what sort of explanation the community considers sufficient is, of course, a question for the community as a whole rather than the Committee. If there is wide consensus to allow or disallow some particular option here, that's perfectly open to discussion.
Does that answer your questions, or did I miss something? Kirill 21:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Azerbaijan

There seems to be a decent amount of activity. For the sake of convenience the logs of these two cases should be somehow merged, perhaps templatified so that same log is visible on both pages and when a new entry is added it shows on both pages. This is trivially easy to do. {{Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Enforcement Log}} can be created and transcluded on both pages for this task.

-- Cat chi? 12:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have created the sub page per WP:BOLD. I have not transcluded it yet tho (I am not THAT bold). I'd like to do so per some sort of approval. -- Cat chi? 06:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
"For the sake of conveniece" Do you mean for your convenience? If so,why would it be convenient for you, and why should your convenience be a reason to merge two separate and extremely controversial RfC records? Meowy 03:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? My convenience? I am neither an admin nor an involved party. How does this make it "more convenient" for me? These are two closely RfAr cases and not RfCs at all. The record in question are copies of block logs. Same information is available in the form of block logs. Merge suggestion was to simplify an already complex case with a centralized list as both cases are very closely related. Frankly this opposition baffled me. Yes I am quite surprised. -- Cat chi? 15:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how it would be "more convenient" for you. You made the "convenience" comment, so you are the one who should know! The case is complex because the second RfA case was exceptional in its outcome, especially in its draconian powers and in (what I believe to be) the unparallelled breadth of its scope which extended the remit of the original RfA far beyond reasonable and normal limits. There should be no move to minimise or disguise that situation. Meowy 01:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that "draconian" argument relevant to the block log? This is merely merge the block logs, something available in machine generated logs...
It helps distinguish really disruptive users that got regular blocks from others. For example, we had several users that had engaged in disruptive sockpuppetary. Past blocks may be overlooked in a hypothetical situation if a user was blocked per RfAR case 1 and needs to be blocked again per RfAR case 2. The complicated nature of the cases as you pointed out makes review rather difficult which exactly why simplifying that process as much as possible is necessary. Some logs are relentless! Such a synchronized block log would minimize the confusion. Block logs are public data and this suggestion isn't even remotely controversial.
Does you opposition have a reason? If so please state it because I do not see the mention of such a reason so far.
-- Cat chi? 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Will a single arbitrator or clerk comment on this? -- Cat chi? 12:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Short answer: no. The two cases are distinct; merging the logs will merely confuse everyone regarding what exactly each case allows for. Kirill 17:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status of TruthCrusader block review?

On October 31st User:TruthCrusader was indefinitely blocked for off-wiki harassment of User:Calton. TruthCrusader maintains that he did not make the off-wiki postings he was blocked for and requested that the blocking admin, User:Jpgordon, provide evidence justifying the block. Jpgordon declined to discuss the matter on the grounds that reviewing the material would further aggravate the harassment by making the attacks known to a wider population. The suggestion was made that only ArbCom should review the evidence because of its inflammatory nature and TruthCrusader thus submitted the matter to ArbCom for review. TruthCrusader states that no response has been forthcoming to date.

Generally, I think the less which is done 'behind closed doors' the better. Making the evidence publicly available exposes it to additional eyes who may see things that a handful of arbitrators do not and thus actually prove the truth of the matter one way or the other. We've recently seen how that works in the !! case. We should only be invoking 'secrecy' in the most extreme of cases where personally identifying information, legal complications, or the like are involved... and then only for the smallest portion of those cases which actually must be kept from the public.

Regardless, it has been a past axiom of ArbCom cases (and common sense) that admins must be prepared to explain and justify their actions. If Jpgordon will not publicly discuss how he determined that TruthCrusader was behind the off-wiki actions attributed to him then at the least we need to hear from ArbCom that they have reviewed the matter. As it stands we've got a user blocked for nearly a month for actions he allegedly committed off-wiki. If he is or may be innocent that's unacceptable. If he is guilty then it is well past time to say so and close this matter out. --CBD 14:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Application of the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks policies

Can the Arbitration committee please clarify their position on the application of these policies. There seems to be notable general feeling that past rulings by the committee have set precedent that 'Standing', ie history of contributions and administrative work, can be used as mitigation for incivil behavior and personal attacks against other editors. Specifically, I ask if 'Standing' can be used as defense even if past history indicates the editor will continue to make personal attacks and other disruptive incivility, something that policy indicates should result in preventative block. --Barberio (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Standing" should obviously have no effect on findings of fact. Our custom is to allow standing to affect any remedy. If "remedy" is taken literally - the AC actually does try to fix up situations - it should be clear why that is. The process is not punitive, but has regard to the work going on daily on the site. Analogy with criminal proceedings can mislead. If you are asking whether the AC should apply remedies it knows in advance are likely to fail, the answer is "no"; though of course we are allowed to take a more optimistic view than self-appointed prosecutors. And mixing in policy is an odd thing here; certain kinds of disruption are within the remit of any admin, quite independent of what the AC says. But it is true that an AC case ought to be considered to have 'dealt with' past history, given in evidence. After all, blocking productive editors is a loss to the project. Generally it is not that helpful if ancient incidents are brought up against people. Charles Matthews (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, however I'm not sure you clarified the point I was asking about. I find your statement that "certain kinds of disruption are within the remit of any admin" very confusing.
You also seem to contradict the policy by saying past history of personal attacks should not be considered. To quote WP:NPA : "Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered 'disruption'. Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." This seems to me clear indication that someone with an obvious past history of personal attacks, who makes no effort or only token efforts to reform, and continues to make personal attacks may be blocked as a preventative measure regardless of their 'standing'.
I'm not entirely sure if you are saying that an editor who habitually makes personal attacks, and thus could be preventively blocked, can be a productive editor. It would seem to me that such an editor is being counter-productive. --Barberio (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statement about admins is consistent with what you quoted from policy, no? "Recurring" needs sensible interpretation; once a week, yes, if you go back six months, no. Admins do have some discretion here; blocks for disruption are always in some measure judgement calls. You asked how the AC sees it, and I am of course speaking for myself here. But the AC tends to work from principles, not detailed policy wording (which is always very much subject to mission creep). "Preventive" blocking; I think we'd not be happy to see indefinite blocks, but "cooling off" blocks are within admin discretion, assuming they are proportionate to the situation. On your last point, it seems clear that some productive editors do also indulge in personal attacks. There is no "entitlement"; what actually happens is that the AC is only happy to take cases on this alone (loudmouth stuff) when there is something fairly definite to point to. One final point is that civility paroles are a standard remedy, which the AC will use in cases (and if we don't, it is some indication). Charles Matthews (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This raises the question of someone who after being warned about Personal Attacks, 'cleans up their act' for six months, but then reverts back to making personal attacks with signs they will continue. By your standard, we should not consider their history as it's 'the far past'. It is notable that application of 'civility parole' could lead to cases of this type arising where the editor returns to bad behavior some time after the period of parole is over.
This is explicitly not the standard that is applied to other cases of disruptive behavior such as edit waring. In those cases past history has been considered when an editor reverts to that behavior and appears ready to continue doing so. I'm confused as to why you feel this should not be applied to NPA and civility?
I'm afraid I must strongly disagree with you on your point that 'productive editors' may engage in personal attacks. By definition, productive editors are those who make contributions to the project. Making personal attacks significantly and strongly detracts from the project. Editors who are making personal attacks are not productive members of the project, and shouldn't be treated as if they are. A plumber who unclogs my toilet, repairs my shower, fixes my sink, then smashes all my windows; was not being productive. --Barberio (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) That's anyway not what I said. I said there is no entitlement to be incivil, whatever an editor's contribution. And you were asking about the AC's collective view, which I have tried to explain. Personally I'm a hawk on incivility - I always vote for civility parole remedies, as you could see from my voting record. I would answer your point by saying simply that the AC's real expertise is in the field of editor behaviour. We are expected to take everything into account, case-by-case. Your hypothetical plumber would be a vandalism case, not an incivility case. We are expected to place decisions in some sort of framework. That's what the principles are for. There are some relevant principles, but not what you are saying. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to restate, or link to, those principles you feel express the opinion of the ArbCom on this issue? --Barberio (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, I just read what you wrote above about "cooling off" blocks. My thought was that this had generally been regarded as an unhelpful thing to do. Blocks tend to generate heat, not coolness, especially when the person being issued a "cooling off" block is already quite angry. I believe I've seen users blocked for being irritible come back enraged after the block expires. IronDuke 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

I'm requesting a review on my placement under supervision by User:Ryan Postlethwaite for the following reason. The AA2 remedy #2 states: "Any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions." Ryan Postletwaite claims that "Although I don't see any incivility, the scope of the remedy was supposed to cover disruption via incivility or edit warring". I don't see the word OR, which Ryan felt so strong about that he made it appear bold.

This is what Thatcher131 told me month ago: "So far, no admin including myself has found that you yourself have edited these articles in an "aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility" and so you have not yet been placed under the restrictions described here. Thatcher131 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)"[23]

Am I being compared to E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Previously indef banned for edit warring, who was simultaneously edit warring with me and another user [24], [25], [26], . Who breached WP:3RR [27], [28], [29], [30], Who kept insisting (by reverting) that its gonna be his way and no other? even by reverting my minor edits [31]. Who generally disregarded the talkpage and is yet to give justification for most of his POV reverts. Was I wrong, when I tried to compromise and only reverted partially? Was I wrong when I tried to keep the article as neutral as possible? As I said before, even though I was not under the restriction and supervised editing, I never reverted without justification, always explained and justified my edits in the talkpage. Most importantly my edits were not marked by incivility.

In fear of turning this board into another "he said she said" I request that only administrators respond to this request. VartanM (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration remedies are not meant to be carte blanche for administrators unless they explicitly provide for such authority. Ryan's interpretation of the decision here is incorrect; the remedy is applicable only to cases where the editor is incivil. Kirill 05:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about many other users, such as User:Aynabend and User:Baku87, who were placed on parole without any prior warning, while they both had a clean block log and never made any incivil comments? I don't think E104421 was incivil either. Both VartanM and E104421 were placed on parole for edit warring on Shusha article, since they made 3rvs each. VartanM had a previous official warning from another admin to stop edit warring, otherwise he would be placed on parole [32]. So I think we need a clarification here. Can admins place users on parole for just edit warring, or they need to be engaged in both edit warring and incivility to be placed on parole? If the latter, then parole of some users has to be lifted. Grandmaster (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Krill for a super fast reply. Grandmaster the answer to your question is most probably that they need to personally come here and make their case. Assuming good faith on GM's part for ignoring my kind request. Good night to all. VartanM (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to clarify the general principle of application of this remedy. If it applies only for incivilty, then User:E104421, User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 should be all relieved of it, since they never violated any civility rules, and the latter 2 editors have no previous blocks, warnings, etc, unlike User:VartanM. Grandmaster (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, User:VartanM is violating Users national background and neutrality principle by engaging in edit warring and POV pushing across several articles without restriction. We are yet to see how you address that by giving him a green light to continue doing what he is doing. And if VartanM's behavior was not marked by incivility, then how did the ArbCom address these [33], several counts of incivility not ever supervised, restricted or paroled? And if the VartanM's continuous editing conduct allows for interpretation against supervised editing, then how would supervised editing apply in case of the other user User:E104421, whose edits were not incivil. Based on POV pushed by User:VartanM throughout Wikipedia without any review or restriction, and paroles being deliberately applied only to contributors of certain one side, lifting the supervised editing is a delibreate violation of neutrality. Atabek (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why does VartanM cross out administrator's decision [34] when this should be done either by administrator or arbitrator? Atabek (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ArbCom notice reads: "Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page." I edited the Shusha article for the first time yesterday. I did not edited in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. I provided sources, cited the references, commented on the talk pages and edit summaries. On the other hand, VartanM deleted the new section, references and quotatins on "cultural life" added by myself from cited references. VartanM's POV is focused on my previous block-log due to my long term conflicts with Tajik on Nomadic Empires related topics. My last block is dated 1 April 2007. That case was closed. I edited for the first time an Az-Ar related topic in my life (just 4 times + 1 minor spell check), but it's claimed that i have history of Az-Ar related topics. Now, i was placed under the parole, but VartanM's parole is removed. What kind of double standard is this? Deletion of referenced material constantly is not regarded as edit-warring, but addition of "new section and references" are claimed to be edit-warring. What happened to the basic Wikipedia policies: "WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:DR"? Regards. E104421 (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Kiril for the response here. I was under the impression that this remedy tried to stop disruption in all forms (i.e. edit warring or incivility) due to the history of editing on these pages. Whilst I see that both users here have edit warred on the pages, I fail to see any incivility coming from them, so unless there's evidence of that, I'll remove both names from the supervised editing log. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 were placed under the same parole for a single page edit and without any incivility cited. So please, review their paroles as well. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed Baku87 and VartanM for now - I'll wait for a response from the administrators that put E104421 and Aynabend under supervised editing before removing their names. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ryan. Atabek (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, if I get this right, the remedy implies that the editors are free to edit war on topic related articles as long as they remain civil? If not, what the arbcom remedy proposes to stop edit wars, which were the reason to 2 arbcom cases in the first place? Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share a similar concern with this remedy. Given the scale of the disruption on this topic, I don't think it's a good idea that users must be incivil with edit warring. Edit warring is disruptive on its own and this does seem to advocate edit warring on the pages provided that the users remain civil. I think when a case like this goes to arbitration twice, administrators should be given a little bit more freedom to interpret decisions because per the clarification from Kirill yesterday, I've had to remove five names from the supervised editing list that should all most probably have had their editing placed under supervision, but can't because of a technicality. In many ways it seems it's a way to game the system. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last month I requested a RfC on the apparent arbitrary extensions of the powers that the RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan2 remedy created. Being out of the country for 4 weeks, I did not have the opportunity to see its result. Where (if anywhere?) would the archive of that discussion material be stored? I must point out to the initiator of this RfC, that remedy 2 does not actually contain the words he has quoted. The fact that it does not, was the crux of my RfC. Meowy 18:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that one of the arbitrators said that he was happy with the way the remedy was enforced, and that was after a number of editors were placed on parole for edit warring and sockpuppetry. [35] Grandmaster (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but they aren't the ones that have to deal with the situation day in, day out, and might not be fully aware as to the extent of the problems on these pages. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the other 5 arbitrators didn't even bother to respond? Astonishing, especially since I personally asked each of them to do so and also pointed out in some detail the flaws in both the use and scope of the RfA remedy. I am seriously considering making a RfA on the validity of the mess that is the Armenian-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy. Meowy 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was another prior discussion here: [36], and I might be wrong, but the remedy seemed to be interpreted differently at the time. Grandmaster (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone for this initative. I indeed have no problem in coming ahead, stating and being very proud that I have never used any incivility in my communications neither in this page nor somewhere else, and would highly appreciate if this injustice be corrected. Thanks again --Aynabend (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like nobody is going to comment. But I would be really interested to know the opinion of the arbitrators about how the remedies passed under the second Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom are supposed to stop disruption on topic related articles, if they limit the application of the remedy 2 to incivility only, while disruption on topic related articles was never limited to incivility? The Armenia – Azerbaijan 2 case specifically mentions among the principles that edit warring, disruptive editing and sockpuppet abuse are considered harmful, but now it turns out that the editors placed on parole for those specific abuses should be relieved of their parole, because the remedy in fact provides for only one specific form of disruption. It seems like Armenia – Azerbaijan 2 case might not be the last one. It would be nice to get additional comments from the arbitrators with regard to how this remedy is supposed to stop disruption by new users, not restricted by any measures from the 1st case, and who are now free to edit disruptively as long as they remain civil? Thanks in advance for any comment. Grandmaster 11:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


RFAR/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

I've been contacted by User:Certified.Gangsta, who left the project in June 2007 in consequence of the sanctions imposed on him in the Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram RFAR. He was finding it impossible to edit under them, and was feeling very frustrated. User:Ideogram is now under a community ban, where he was found to have baited Certified.Gangsta and attempted to drive him off the project (successfully). CG is thinking about returning, and wonders if he might possibly have his editing restrictions revoked, despite the infractions he has indeed committed. Would the arbitrators like to take a look at this case, please? To remind you of how it went, I've written up a short overview of the circumstances here. Other users should feel free to add their views of the matter at that subpage, or at this notification, whichever works. Bishonen | talk 09:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Committee is discussing this matter. Kirill 13:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I would not personally recommend a lifting of the restriction, since Ideogram was not the only editor that encountered his edit warring and I fail to see a pressing need in the absence of his primary antagonist. Giving such a user the extra wiggle room of two to three non-vandalism reverts seems like a poor idea for an established edit warrior. However, I would not be opposed to the editing restrictions being lifted, since the community tends to take a dim view of continued nonsense from editors with a problematic history. If CG were to relapse towards poor behaviour, I'm fairly confidant it would be handled quite quickly without kid gloves. I doubt great harm would result from allowing him the chance to participate in Wikipedia productively without editing restrictions. Additionally, the endorsement of Bishonen and Jehochman for the lifting of restrictions is a strong point in its favour. A bit of thought on both sides of the coin. *hands out grains of salt* Vassyana 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Disclosure: I was the blocking sysop for the most recent parole violation.[reply]

Thank you, Vassyana. Some recent developments: in his edits of today, November 10, Certified.Gangsta points (on request) to his positive contributions to the project.[37]. Please note especially his appeal here, and the new section "Contribution" on his talkpage, which he's in the process of adding to. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Motions in prior cases

Motions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=177205578"